Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on climate change makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the nation’s first-ever carbon pollution
standards for existing power plants on June 2, 2014. The EPA-proposed Clean Power Plan would
achieve a 30% reduction in carbon emissions from U.S. power plants below 2005 levels by 2030
(USEPA 2014a). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas and a major driver of human-induced global climate change. Fossil-fuel-fired power plants are the single largest source of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the U.S. They emitted 2.2 billion tons of CO2 in 2012 (AOE 2014) and
currently account for 39 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions (USEPA 2014b).

Standards to address global climate change by reducing CO2 emissions from power plants can spur
significant improvements to public health and the environment by also curbing other emissions from this
source such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg).
SO2 and NOx emissions contribute to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) sometimes referred
to as “soot”. NOx emissions are also a major precursor to ground-level ozone (O3), sometimes referred to
as “smog”. For human health, these pollutants increase the risk of premature death, heart attacks,
severity of asthma, and other health effects. For ecosystems, these pollutants contribute to acid rain, the
over-fertilization of surface waters and many types of ecosystems, ozone damage to trees and crops, and
the accumulation of toxic mercury in fish.

Scientists from Syracuse, Harvard, and Boston Universities launched a three-part1
co-benefits study in
2013 to quantify the: (1) air quality, (2) public health, and (3) environmental co-benefits of three
different carbon policy scenarios based on projected changes in power plant emissions of SO2, NOx, and
PM. The term “co-benefits” refers to the added improvements that occur from implementing a policy,
beyond those associated with the primary target. In this case, the primary target is the reduction of CO2
emissions and the co-benefits are the improvements associated with ancillary decreases in the other
emissions. Since this study is strictly an analysis of co-benefits, it does not quantify the direct health
benefits of mitigating climate change, such as anticipated decreases in future heat-related illness.

The three policy scenarios for power plant carbon standards assessed in this study are described on the
following page and on pages 7 and 8. The three scenarios represent differing CO2 emissions reduction
stringencies, flexibility in compliance options, and investments in demand-side energy efficiency. These scenarios were designed prior to the release of the Clean Power Plan, and capture a broad range of
alternatives that can inform the final rule. The analysis isolates the co-benefits that are solely attributable
to the carbon standards by comparing power plant emissions under the policy scenarios to the emissions
that would have occurred under a business-as-usual reference case in the year 2020. The reference case
includes the implementation of existing air pollution control policies.

This scenario focuses on heat rate upgrades and other improvements in the operating efficiency of
existing power plants. It represents what is commonly referred to as an “inside the fence line” approach
favored by some industry groups and states. It does not include new end-user energy efficiency.

This scenario includes state-based CO2 emission targets, flexible compliance options, and significant
program investments in new end-user energy efficiency. This scenario is most similar to the EPA-proposed Clean Power Plan.

Scenario 3: Cost of Carbon Improvements (high stringency, moderate flexibility/no user efficiency)
This scenario compels power plants to implement all upgrades and CO2 pollution controls up to a cost of
$43 per ton of CO2 reduced. This scenario allows some shift to renewables but does not include new
investments in end-user energy efficiency.

In Part 1 of the study, changes in air quality in the U.S. were evaluated in response to expected changes
in power plant emissions for each policy scenario in the year 2020 (Driscoll et al. 2014). The top-performing option for air quality was Scenario 2: Electricity Sector Improvements. It results in an
estimated 24% decrease in U.S. power plant carbon emissions from the 2020 reference case (Driscoll et
al. 2014). This is equivalent to a 35% decrease from 2005 levels, the baseline year used by EPA in the
Clean Power Plan. For the other pollutants, Scenario 2 results in an estimated decrease in power plant
emissions from the 2020 reference case of 27% for SO2, 22% for NOx, and 27% for Hg. The decrease in
emissions in Scenario 2 results in widespread air quality improvements of up to 1.35 micro-grams per
cubic meter (µg/m3
) for annual average PM2.5 and up to 3.6 parts per billion (ppb) for the 8-hour
maximum summertime ozone by 2020.

In Part 2 of the study, we analyzed the health co-benefits of the air quality changes under each of the
three scenarios. The results are summarized here and presented in detail in the sections that follow.

1. Power plant carbon standards can improve air quality and provide substantial health co-benefits. The
carbon standard that is moderately stringent has the greatest health co-benefits of the three analyzed
(Scenario 2). The high compliance flexibility and high end-user energy efficiency in Scenario 2
results in the greatest number of premature deaths avoided overall and per ton of CO2 reduced. This
scenario is most similar to the EPA-proposed Clean Power Plan in its design and resulting CO2 emissions. It yields the following estimated health co-benefits in the U.S. in 2020 compared to the
business-as-usual reference case:

2. The geographic distribution of health co-benefits in the top-performing scenario (Scenario 2) is
widespread with all lower 48 states receiving some benefit. The 12 states with the greatest estimated
number of premature deaths avoided are those where there are a large number of exposed people and
air quality improves the most. They are (in order): PA, OH, TX, IL, MI, NY, NC, GA, MO, VA, TN,
and IN. The 12 states with the greatest estimated percent increase in premature deaths avoided are
(in order): PA, OH, WV, MO, MI, KY, MD, DC, IL, DE, IN, and AR.

3. The carbon standard with the lowest stringency has the lowest health co-benefits (Scenario 1).
Its low flexibility and focus on improving power plant heat rates and operating efficiency results in
little to no benefit with a slight increase in estimated premature deaths and heart attacks per year in
the U.S. from the 2020 reference case.

4. The carbon standard with the highest stringency (Scenario 3) has high health co-benefits but they are
lower than Scenario 2. It results in fewer estimated premature deaths avoided per year in the U.S.
from the 2020 reference case and nearly half as many avoided per ton of CO2 reduced as Scenario 2.

5. Overall, the study shows that the health co-benefits of power plant carbon standards can be large but
the magnitude depends on critical policy choices. The carbon standard scenario that combines
moderately stringent carbon targets with highly flexible compliance options and more end-user
energy efficiency (Scenario 2) has the greatest estimated health co-benefits.

The results of this study indicate that carbon standards for existing power plants that are aimed at
addressing the long-term issue of global climate change can bring substantial near-term state and local
health co-benefits. They also demonstrate that the specific policy design choices for power plant carbon
standards have a critical influence on the magnitude and distribution of the health co-benefits that occur.
The improvements in air quality that accompany a carbon standard can result in nearly immediate
benefits to human health. Extended implementation timelines would delay the accrual of these benefits.
For the U.S. and other nations with significant greenhouse gas emissions and air quality challenges,
local health co-benefits could be an important additional motivator for taking action on climate change.

Power Plant Pollution: Emissions, Air Quality, and Health

Power plants are the single largest source of CO2 (39%), SO2 (71%), and Hg (53%) emissions in the
U.S. (NEI 2011, USEPA 2014b). They are also the second largest source of NOx emissions (14%) (NEI
2011). Carbon pollution standards for existing power plants would not only help address the challenge
of global climate change, they would also confer substantial near-term state and local health co-benefits
by reducing power plant emissions of SO2, NOx, Hg, and directly emitted particulate matter (PM).
Emissions of SO2 and NOx contribute to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and tropospheric
ozone (O3; referred to here as “ozone”)…

Fossil-fuel-fired power plants are the single largest source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the
U.S. (~39%). They emitted approximately 2.2 billion tons of CO2 in 2012. Fossil-fuel-fired
power plants are also the single-largest U.S. source of SO2 and Hg emissions, and the second
largest source of NOx emissions. The results from this study show that carbon pollution
standards for existing U.S. power plants can provide the added bonus of substantial near-term
health co-benefits for by reducing emissions of co-pollutants (SO2, NOx, Hg and PM) and
improving air quality.

The results of this health co-benefits analysis suggest that carbon standards that have stringent
CO2 emissions reductions targets but are flexible and include new investments in energy
efficiency, offer greater and more widespread health co-benefits than the other alternatives
examined here. Scenario 2, which is most similar to the EPA-proposed Clean Power Plan, has
the greatest estimated health co-benefits of the three scenarios analyzed. The results also show
that carbon standards focused strictly on power plant retrofits could increase emissions and little
to no health co-benefits nationwide. The results underscore that the design of power plant carbon
standards strongly influences the magnitude and distribution of air quality improvements and
health co-benefits that accrue to states and to local communities. For the U.S. and other nations
with significant greenhouse gas emissions and air quality challenges, quantifying and valuing
local benefits could be an important additional motivator for taking action on climate change.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.